Maxel

As I said before, it depends on a person's definition of 'bad'.

Who's nuts- the Church members who say Christian music is apostate, or the Christian artists?

It doesn't matter if omega is or not. There's no hard, definite revelation on the matter, and a Mormon in good standing before God can believe the Earth is 8,000 or 8,000,000,000 years old without contradicting revealed truth. Wasn't the great mandate to Adam and Eve to replenish the earth and subdue it? Seems to me that positive human influence on the evolution of plants and animals is a requirement for God's plan.

A few points of confusion/discrepancy for me:'I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth' I do not subscribe to the doctrine of ex nihilo, or the doctrine that God made everything out of nothing. I believe God organized preexisting matter into the Earth. I have no qualms with the term 'Maker', but knowing a little bit about the Creeds (and I speak of the Nicene and later creeds when I say 'Creeds'), I know the doctrine of ex nihilo is supported by them. 'And in one Lord Jesus Christ... God of God, Light of Light, very God of God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father...' I don't believe Christ is of one substance with the Father. I believe the two are separate beings. I also am hesitant about accepting the words 'God of God, Light of Light, very God of God'- what do they mean? I'm sure someone can explain those phrases, but right now they are no more than philosophical mumbo jumbo to me. I could guess at a meaning, but I wouldn't want to assume the Nicene Creed says something it actually doesn't. 'And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son...' I don't believe the Holy Ghost is Lord and Giver of Life, as I understand the term. I believe the Holy Ghost's role is to testify of truth and carry revelation and the word of God to the hearts of man. If one understands 'Life' as the word of God, then yes I guess he is the Giver of Life; however I understand 'Life' as meaning the physical forces that allow us to eat, breathe, live, repent, etc.- forces I believe work under the influence and direction of the Light of Christ, which emanates from Christ Himself and not the Holy Ghost. 'And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.' I fully agree with this part. I find it ironic that many Protestants who accept this creed and its intellectual progeny do not believe in an apostolic Church, and catholic only in the sense that all believers are the body of Christ with no need for uniformity of practice, doctrine, etc. I have noted your belief about the 'apostolic' concept, but I personally reject the idea that God would found his Church in one manner, then let it continue to grow in another manner- I see it as planting a carrot but expecting a pear to grow from it. I fear the refusal to believe in apostolic succession comes from the belief that Christ's church could still be found on Earth after the general time of the New Testament (with recorded apostles)- that is, the lack of belief in living apostles arises from tradition instead of revealed scripture. My biggest problem with the Nicene Creed itself is that it cements the tradition that God's word is to be interpreted by the philosophical lens of men in councils, and not the Biblical example of prophets, seers, and revelators. My big problems with the theology of the early Christian Creeds mainly begins with the Athanasian Creed, and lies largely in the fact that many accept the Creeds as truth on par with the Bible I do not disagree with you here. In fact, I most decidedly agree with you- the Creeds are a guide, not scripture themselves. As all guides, they can be wrong. There are verses in the Bible that lend credence to the ideas found in the Nicene and other Creeds. However, I adamantly reject the idea that the Trinity and other doctrines set forth in the creeds are the only interpretation supported by scripture. When I read the creeds, I see the language and understanding of men, not God. I see the representatives of Athens, not Jerusalem.Authoritative, prophetic interpretation of scripture is just as important as having authoritative, prophetic scripture itself. Otherwise, sundry heresies and blasphemies could draw 'support' from scripture. Also- where did you find the information you posted in post # 10? Drawing from outside sources is fine, but you need to cite your source. I don't think they're your words because of the length of the post and the sharp contrast in writing styles- particularly your usually ever present capitalization of the words GOD, CHRIST, HOLY GHOST, etc.

EDIT: Just saw your other post on the Nicene Creed, LittleNipper- I'm moving my comments to that thread. Thank you for your thoughts and comments on the Nicene Creed, LittleNipper. As this thread is about the Trinity, I wonder if you would like to discuss the Athanasian Creed (as it is the Creed that most fully lays down the traditional Christian view of the nature of God)?

Firstly, I want to say I hope you're not physically addicted, as it will make quitting that much easier. Secondly- do you think the caffeine intake is what helps you 'get through the day'? After reading and rereading your post, I'm not quite sure if you drink coffee once you get to school/on your way to school, or if the mere habit of picking it up is what you're afraid of kicking. If the caffeine is something that helps you stay awake, you might be able to survive, for now, on caffeinated soft drinks. I know the irony of a True Blue Mormon suggesting caffeinated drinks is rich, but I'm thinking that your body might need time- a lot of time- to switch from drinking coffee to halting all caffeine intake. And, in work and school as intense as yours, putting yourself off your A-game could end up in disaster, for you and others.In the end, it's a personal thing that you'll need to figure out. Mostly, you'll need to know what about the coffee itself (if any) you need to healthily function, and then find a healthy way to replace/make up for it, then wean yourself off of that if you feel the need. Now, onto the original point of the thread... Although I've never been addicted to coffee or physical substances, I have before had a howler monkey lodged on my upper back. Though it might seem extreme, I recommend researching and prayerfully applying the 12 steps that Alcoholics Anonymous uses and apply them to your situation, if you have trouble kicking the habit. The Church uses the 12 steps in its Addiction Recovery Programs, and they are wonderful and they work. Good luck!

I agree with your message, Funky, but I also agree with jolee and want to comment.It goes back to the 'milk before meat' doctrine. I think Gordon B. Hinckley did know, while on this Earth, the truth about the infinite progression of Gods- but he's not going to tell anyone who's not ready to receive it. Some people learn things that they flat out refuse to tell people, even faithful LDS members, because that knowledge was given to them under the strictest command not to share, except as guided by the spirit. President Hinckley had to weigh the virtue of being 100% honest vs. the virtue of not giving unto babes the meat intended for healthy adults. Obviously, the second won out. However, he is 110% correct- there is no official doctrine of the LDS Church that lays out the full groundwork of this doctrine. Yes, there's the King Follet Discourse, Lorenzo Snow's couplet, and a thousand other non-canonical support for it, but it's not official for a reason.

You bring up an interesting point- one that Terryl Givens deals with (though through corollaries) in his book, 'By the Hand of Mormon' (which I love... big Givens fan, here). What I relate here I learned from Givens' book.As has been stated earlier, the religious milieu of Smith's day was steeped in spiritualism (as was noted, many Protestants attempted to divine inspired information through stones and other spiritualistic means). The actual physical reality of the Golden Plates gave an unusual effect and credence to Smith's claims of divine interpreter. In fact, many early missionaries of the Church focused on the method of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and its significance (that God had commenced His work in the last days) as opposed to the doctrine contained therein- and the message often resonated with the people of the day, whether they lived inside or outside the United States. Also, much hinged on the testimony of the Three and Eight Witnesses. How could they have seen the plates and held them if the plates had not been given to Joseph Smith? Finally, I believe the gift of translating and the gift of tongues is less exhausting and 'easier' than the gift of prophecy, as relating to the Book of Mormon's translation. In other words, it would have been more trying on Joseph Smith's soul and body if he had to write the Book or Mormon solely by prophetic revelation. I believe the translating of the Book of Mormon, with its accompanying tolls and expectations, prepared Joseph Smith for the many doctrinal revelations he would receive later.

My two cents- I hate Christian rock music. It brings back painful memories of my youth, when my 'Christian' friends would listen to it and then do very, very un-Christian things, including having make-out parties that led to orgies. (No, I never participated, but they liked to talk about it...) Obviously, the most important lesson one can truly learn from those experiences is 'don't hang around with pseudo-Christians who are into popular Christian culture but who are, in actuality, not Christian at heart'. But, being mortal, I now cannot disassociate Christian rock music with hypocrisy of the worst kind- so I abhor it. Luckily, my taste in friends improved, and I learned that Christian music (including Christian rock) was genuinely enjoyed by non-hypocritical Christians. I myself have learned to appreciate softer Christian music (though I can't name bands). However, contemporary popular Christian songs are not hymns. They are not made with the intention of being hymns; they lean towards sensationalism rather than reverence, and choose entertainment over doctrinal profundity. I have rarely heard a Christian song explore any doctrine other than 'Christ died for me', 'God loves me', 'I should love my fellow man', and 'I love God!'. Those things aren't bad- but they're not exactly conducive to reflection. When experiencing contemporary Christian music as entertainment, the aforementioned qualities are totally fine; I have no problem with them. I agree that Christian music is much better than a lot of the other options out there. However, when a church begins to use them in place of hymns, then there's a problem, in my ever-so-humble yet ever-so-judgmental opinion. The modern Christian music I have heard relies on sensationalistic beats, tessituras, and presentation to make an emotional impact. The focus has gone from music inspiring reverent, intrinsic reflection on the Gospel of Christ, to music inspiring catharsis and trance-inducing sensationalism. It is not music worshiping God, it is music about God. Others may disagree with me on this; that's fine. I come to this opinion being a faithful Latter-day Saint with much theatrical influence and activity in my life. My opinion is formed primarily by experiences with 2 friends whose church services I attended (twice with each friend). The churches were both non-denominational Protestant churches. The first church could have passed as a producer of brilliant production on Broadway, with catchy music constantly playing (including during the prayers and sermon, with silence only to punctuate dramatic pauses). The second church was not as theatrical, yet the music was still aimed to produce a cathartic response among the crowd. Often, the result is the listeners waving their hands in the air, eyes half-closed (or fully closed) and waving back and forth. I do one or two of these actions too, sometimes, when listening to my favorite Broadway showtunes. Such actions are the result of a powerful emotional response, but rarely (if ever) the response of a person actually feeling the spirit of God and being touched by it. The focus is taken off of the inner spiritual man, and placed on the outer sensational man. I don't see a problem with Christian music in and of itself (except for heavy rock music with Christ-centered lyrics. The examples I have heard amount to hypocrisy incarnate; for music is much more than its lyrics, and certain styles of music invite diabolical influences to the mind despite its lyrics. Heavy rock/metal is one of them). However, when one views the switch from older hymns to contemporary Christian music as harmless and just a transitioning of religious culture from one generation to another, that person is being deceived. I think it's important to acknowledge the transition when discussing Christian music, as it is a widespread phenomenon that has serious implications.

I give the guy '0' for tact, and '3' for understanding the legal implications of LDS doctrine (on a scale of 0-5). I actually don't disagree with the bulk of what he said on the GLBT issue- it's the manner in which he said it that makes me want to tear out my hair and rent my clothes. His comparison of gay rights supporters to Muslim radicals and how he boasted about killing gay rights bills are the worst examples of misconstrued doctrine, IMO. And, the comment about a complex bill he disliked being a 'black baby'... *headdesk* Here's hoping Buttars doesn't get reelected... again.

Pam's is much better, I suggest using hers. My central concern was to preserve the original author's tone- which comes across very... uneducated, when it's translated to English from French.

The definition of a martyr is someone who dies for his or her belief willingly. (dictionary.com's literal definition is this: a martyr is 'a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.') So, Joseph Smith is most definitely a martyr. Whether one believes his was an example of Christian martyrdom is up for debate- yet he was a martyr nonetheless. I agree, it's quite the same thing. However, the stories involved both men dying because of their flesh rotting away, starting from the point where the bullet from Joseph's gun grazed their flesh. The first died of rotting internal organs, and one of his final confessions was that Joseph was a true prophet of God. The second died when a maggot (that was among others that had been laid in this man's rotting flesh) ate through his jugular vein. He too admitted that Joseph was a prophet before he died. The very grotesque and horribly unique nature of the disease happening in two men at the same incident, and getting the infection from minor wounds, is extremely incredulous and would require an act of God to explain.If you are willing to agree that both these accounts are factual, I will by no means stop you, as both offer overwhelming evidence for the real issue at hand- was Joseph Smith a prophet of God. However, as I stated before, I read them in an autobiography of a faithful Latter-day Saint apostle who much admired Joseph Smith, so I do not accept them as bona fide fact based solely on that.

I love it! However, it is definitely the article via pam- that is, the author's original voice is lost in this rewrite.However, that's my only qualm with it: in grammar/spelling and presentation it garners A's in my personal book'o'grading.

I'll readjust it a little; I hope to keep the flow and thoughts of the words. If you don't like it or were looking for something else, kindly disregard the following. My very rough translation. Here I am keeping changes to an absolute minimum, so as to let her original tone flow through. I hope that helps. I'm not an expert in spelling or grammar, but I'm 99.99% positive what I've just presented is technically correct, though it doesn't flow very well.

Joseph Smith wasn't fighting only for himself, either. There were three other men that were put in danger because of the mobs, who also did not deserve to die. I find no fault in a Christian when he fights to save the life of a beloved friend. Also, I don't know of any who died immediately because of Joseph's retaliation. I know of two stories of men who died due to unnatural infections they received from the bullets from Joseph's gun, but such stories invariably have the dying man admitting Joseph Smith was a prophet because of the horrendous nature of their punishment. The two accounts I am thinking of can be found in Parley P. Pratt's autobiography, and are as likely fiction as reality (as far as my knowledge of them go).

I don't remember where before I've 'asked concerning additional revelations' on this thread, but I think I understand where you're coming from.And I won't argue on the grounds that what you believe to be revelation is untrue; I believe I have received revelation that states the opposite. What's the point? However, I will ask you this: do you accept the Creeds as holy scripture, on par with the Bible?

My avatar is a constant reminder to me: I represent Christ through virtue of taking upon myself the title of 'Christian'. It is there to remind me that I need to act the part.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but I firmly disagree with the portion I put in bold text. I maintain that, if a person believes the doctrine of the Trinity is explicitly taught in the Bible, then that person is reading extra-biblical doctrinal reasoning into the text of the Bible itself. One of those 'Bible dictionaries' referenced above is the Harper's Bible Dictionary, which reads: It follows that the neither the Latter-day Saints nor traditional Christians actually read the Bible with no extra-biblical influences. The Latter-day Saints are influenced by what they believe to be other works of scripture and revelation (the Standard Works), traditional Christians are influenced by the philosophical post-biblical explanations of Biblical doctrine (i.e., the Councils and Creeds).

The second definition, which has the phrase '- and Christ Jesus is God' was never presented by me. A minor typographical error I'm sure; however, it cannot be used to suggest the simple definition offered by me as one that is 'remarkably close' to your original definition. My most detailed definition to date is 'a Christian is anyone who truly worships Christ for who Christ truly is'. I actually disagree with the entirety of the proceedings of the early Councils that produced the Creeds (except perhaps the Apostles' Creed; but that's another discussion). From what I've read, the proceedings were not inspired of God, and the resulting philosophical statements are obviously Hellenistic Christianity- not Christ's Christianity. I do not condone the 'Arian controversy', but I do not condone the philosophy set forth in the Nicean and subsequent councils in response to it. I feel both are flawed- including the overemphasis on the 'eternal' aspect of Christ, and the incorrect assumption that if Christ did not exist from the beginning of time (as we currently understand it) then He could not be divine.Also, I do see the Christian response to the Arian controversy as an exercise in exclusionary definition, although I wouldn't say it was worthless. It cemented the precedent that would follow for over a millennium: the nature and doctrine of God would be interpreted and decided by councils of uninspired men posturing for power. It was full of ominous import. In regards to 'eternal'- I believe Christ is eternal, yes. In the same way His Father is eternal. I also believe that if we speak about the nature of God as found in the Bible, then we should understand His sundry characteristics in the manner that the original readers of the Bible- first- and second- century Jews and Gentiles- understood vital terms and ideas. I quote professor Stephen Robinson from How Wide the Divide?: Interestingly, Robinson then goes on to explain how Isaiah 44 should be read. My turn to ask you a question: why does this matter? Does a person's belief in the nature of God on this earth matter so much that an honest misunderstanding of the subject doom them to hell? For example, if God is really of a Trinitarian nature, and I believe in the Godhead- does that doom me to everlasting hellfire? I have my opinion; I'd like to know yours.

John- Best of luck, man!! I don't have any words of wisdom, other than to pray a lot and keep your heart open to the Spirit. You're doing the right thing, and you WILL NOT regret it. I personally would love to hear about it when you get back!! Let us know, ok?

Your opinions and insight are more than welcome. Thank you! Very good point. I fear I am a bit of a loner myself; never been one for having close friends. The only one I kept in contact with from childhood is serving a mission. I am the kind of person who sees everyone as a friend, and I will go out of my way to help someone I don't know/barely know, even to extremes (but not unhealthy extremes; I learned a balance in that a little while ago). If you don't mind me asking, are the "moves" wanting to kiss you, hold your hand, ask you to go steady with him, etc.? Also, how would you feel about it if he asked you how you felt about him before trying to further the relationship? (Not how you actually feel about him, but if he asked you about how he felt about him) Exactly! That's part of the purpose of this thread- to educate us all about relationships, including the importance of open, honest communication. It seems to me that, if a man and woman are in a relationship that both are putting unequal emotional investment into (the man wants to get married, the woman wants to just date; etc.) it amounts to them being 'unequally yoked', which is unfair to both.Also, your understanding of my definitions in the OP are correct. I used the older terms to more clearly define them (i.e. to avoid confusion between the 'dating' as in seeing and the 'dating' as in courtship).

In regards to Dymmesdale reading the Book of Mormon- I think that should be saved for this Book of Mormon contradictions thread; this one is to discuss Biblical contradictions. In regards to the Biblical contradictions in this thread- I think it would be helpful if we started listing references for our examples of contradictions (for example I cannot pinpoint, at this time, where Paul's differing accounts of his conversion occur, and therefore cannot contribute to the discussion, though I would sorely like to). I would look myself, but I am running short on time, as I must leave soon. Also, if anyone claims 'scholars agree' about an issue, please cite sources. Anything that draws primarily on outside sources, in fact, need to be cited for sake of easy discussion and avoiding confusion.

I like that idea! I've already cited a page of collected evidences for the Book of Mormon here; I think part of the problem with this thread is that everyone's pitched in and Science4life hasn't logged in since posting his initial question. That, and KoalaBear decided to be inflammatory.I think a thread such as the one you suggested above would be a great idea!

Welcome to the site! Hope we can help as well. :)

Agreed. I remember something about the marshmallows in the Word of Wisdom... And, mnn727 is correct about the Word of Wisdom being applied to the 'weakest of the saints'; in 'gray areas' (so-called) it's whatever is the best decision for you.